Blood tests 1964

[wilderness]

from Dec 9, 1964 Harness Horse and Laurel Raceway 1964 Summary:
. . . and Laurel became the first track in the world where pre-race blood tests of horses, for the detection of stimulants, was put into practice.

from Dec 9, 1964 Harness Horse and First Harness Racing Congress:
Pre-race testing of trotting and pacing horses moved a step nearer during the Commissioners' sessions as USTA representatives, headed by secretary Edward F. Hackett, explained a program to detect stimulation used experimentally at Laurel Raceway during 1964.
Hackett reported that blood samples from eight horses, the usual starting field at Laurel, can be taken in 12 minutes and tests completed on the samples within an hour.
Horses ordinarily are required to be in the paddock at least two hours prior to racing, and results of the tests could be made available to track officials well before the start of wagering on any particular event. Further experiments are planned in 1965 but many of the assembled commissioners expect the program to be put into at least limited operation within two years.
To help finance the pre-race testing program USTA directors voted favorable on harness racing institute's offer to contribute $25,000 a year in 1965 and 1966 to the project.

[Greyfox]

Hackett reported that blood samples from eight horses, the usual starting field at Laurel, can be taken in 12 minutes and tests completed on the samples within an hour.


They wouldn't be able to test for some of today's sophisticated products in that time or at that cost.

[wilderness]

Even today, some test results are simply returned as "cloudy".

It's never been a perfect world of detection.

[sonnyp]

Even today, some test results are simply returned as "cloudy".

It's never been a perfect world of detection.



i posted this once before. i raced a stable off a training facility in central new jersey. had two horses in the same night, one at yonkers,one at meadowlands. you could get close in ny and nj with bute in one and dexamethazone in the other....can't remember which in which. i would write down horses that were "in to go" for the vet to treat each day along with the track and race so as to calculate "withdrawl times" and have no screw ups.

needless to say, the vet screwed up and treated both horses the same. both horses were lucky enough to win and were both tested pre and post race.

the vet and i were so sure the one would come up positive, we agreed as to how to reimburse the owner for the lost purse.

never heard a word, which convinced me a lot of test samples are not processed.....maybe due to expense ?

[wilderness]

never heard a word, which convinced me a lot of test samples are not processed.....maybe due to expense ?

That's the same reason these tests were stopped approximately 1970 ;)

Different accepted levels in different jurisdictions are the reason for many positives in the Class Iv & V ranges.
Even some industry icons have been tagged for these otherwise "administrational" errors, and the deemed by the "general public" as less than credible.

[sonnyp]

That's the same reason these tests were stopped approximately 1970 ;)

Different accepted levels in different jurisdictions are the reason for many positives in the Class Iv & V ranges.
Even some industry icons have been tagged for these otherwise "administrational" errors, and the deemed by the "general public" as less than credible.

ive always been for universal licensing and medication guidelines but,as in every aspect of life, the politicians will screw it up.

[wilderness]

ive always been for universal licensing and medication guidelines but,as in every aspect of life, the politicians will screw it up.

Considering that today, almost everybody ships-in, you'd "assume" that the racing commissions could determine industry wide standards.
And even agree on same, unfortunately, agreement is not in their dictionary.